Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    I can think of 100 different good shooters that don't have to come flying off screens to get their shot off. That is something good SCORERS have to deal with.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      I hate the self-quote, but I feel like this needs repeated:

      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
      All clutch shooters are good shooters, not all good shooters are clutch.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

        rush cannot do that and that is the REASON he attempts so few shots!!!
        First of all, I find the assertion that Granger would hit 60% of his threes if given the same shots Rush gets to be hilarious. Do you remember how poorly Danny performed in the 3 point contest? He was awful. Why? Danny is a better shooter on the move than he is when he has time to think about it. He is a pull up shooter, Rush is a set shooter. Two different things. And yes, I wouldn't trust Rush with a game winner either, but that has nothing to do with his shooting ability and a great deal to do with his mental fortitude.

        Second of all, do you really believe Rush attempts few shots? That's what I want to focus on. He's well above the league average on 3 pointers attempted both over the course of a season and per game.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
          Brandon Rush is not Adam Morrison. How he has transitioned into the league does not exactly mirror the circumstances of Brandon.

          If you don't wanna go that way, then how about this.

          Brandon Rush's first two NBA seasons 3pt%:

          37.3% rookie
          41.1% Sophomore

          Reggie Miller's first two NBA seasons 3pt%:

          35.5% rookie
          40.2% Sophomore


          I never claimed to be smart, I just think it's a bad idea to blindly argue against numbers.
          therefore your assuming rush is going to become the 3 pt assassain that Reggie Miller was? i think your reaching, and again i rely on the eyeball test more so than stats alone.

          the %'s may be comparable, but were the number of attempts? also, were defenders slacking off REG and letting him shoot open jumpers so they could double elsewhere. all these things must be taken into consideration.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
            the %'s may be comparable, but were the number of attempts? also, were defenders slacking off REG and letting him shoot open jumpers so they could double elsewhere. all these things must be taken into consideration.
            Reggie was actually in a pretty similar situation to Rush his first two years. Reggie was just ballsier, and more of a scorer. And no, I'm not saying Rush will be Reggie.

            Reggie his rookie year shot 172 3s. Rush shot 209.
            Reggie his second year shot 224 3s. Rush shot 302.

            Now who's shots were more open? I wasn't able to watch, so I can't say for sure, but based off what I know of those two years in Pacers history, I'm going to say they were probably in pretty similar situations. Why? Because the Pacers of the late 80's weren't a whole lot different than the Pacers of today. They had this guy named Chuck Person who much like Danny Granger drew the focus of the defense. So I'm imagining Reggie got a lot of his looks in his first two years in a similar fashion to how Brandon did these past two.

            They were wired differently though, and thus why Reggie became a great SCORER, while Brandon will probably only remain a great SHOOTER.

            I would need someone who wasn't 1 year old then to confirm my thoughts for me, but I'm really doubting Reggie was the primary focus of the opposing defense his first two years.


            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
              therefore your assuming rush is going to become the 3 pt assassain that Reggie Miller was? i think your reaching, and again i rely on the eyeball test more so than stats alone.

              the %'s may be comparable, but were the number of attempts? also, were defenders slacking off REG and letting him shoot open jumpers so they could double elsewhere. all these things must be taken into consideration.
              You made a comparison to Adam Morrison, I figured I could return the ridiculous comparison favor.

              Here are the attempts numbers:

              Reggie:
              61-172
              98-244

              Brandon:
              78-209
              124-302
              Last edited by TinManJoshua; 11-16-2010, 04:30 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                I hate the self-quote, but I feel like this needs repeated:
                of which Rush is neither.. heaven forbid he get fouled in game 7 of the nba finals and have to make two clutch free throws..

                maybe he can move back to the three point line and shoot em.. might have a much better chance.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  First of all, I find the assertion that Granger would hit 60% of his threes if given the same shots Rush gets to be hilarious. Do you remember how poorly Danny performed in the 3 point contest? He was awful. Why? Danny is a better shooter on the move than he is when he has time to think about it. He is a pull up shooter, Rush is a set shooter. Two different things. And yes, I wouldn't trust Rush with a game winner either, but that has nothing to do with his shooting ability and a great deal to do with his mental fortitude.

                  Second of all, do you really believe Rush attempts few shots? That's what I want to focus on. He's well above the league average on 3 pointers attempted both over the course of a season and per game.
                  your going into an unrelated subject to this discussion. im stating that the majority of rush's threes are uncontested; good shooters in this league are not given the opportunity to shoot 3 uncontested 3's on average per game.

                  for example, rush may shoot 70% of his 3's over the course of a season with time to set, and get a good look at the rim; leaving the other 30% to be contested.

                  if rush were known as a consistent threat from deep like a Danny Granger, Ray Allen, or Reggie Miller.. the number of contested shots would be more like 70% and the open shots with time to set would be 30%.

                  it does not suprise me at all rush averages 3 threes a game.. because thats really all he does is camp out at the 3 pt line waiting for an open look.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                    of which Rush is neither.. heaven forbid he get fouled in game 7 of the nba finals and have to make two clutch free throws..

                    maybe he can move back to the three point line and shoot em.. might have a much better chance.
                    You're making stuff up now. He shoots 67% from the free throw, and 39% from three. He'd still have a better chance of making free throws at the normal line.

                    And again, numbers don't lie. If Brandon Rush's 3pt% hovers around 40% for his career, he's a good shooter. That doesn't make him a clutch shooter.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      1.) One of your main complaints this whole time has been that he doesn't shoot it enough to know one way or the other.

                      2.) Rush's man is a lot more willing to leave him because frankly, Rush doesn't have a single other part of his offensive game that at this point in time commands attention. I guarantee you though, that every single scouting report in the NBA on Rush says that he is a 3 point threat. I mean I would be absolutely shocked if this wasn't the case.

                      And you still haven't addressed the fact that are different kinds of shooters, Danny and Brandon are two entirely different shooters. They don't even attempt the same kinds of shots. Danny looks for 3s in transition, while Brandon looks for 3s in a half court setting. We saw Danny in the 3pt contest in a more half court, feet set environment and he did miserably.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Reggie was actually in a pretty similar situation to Rush his first two years. Reggie was just ballsier, and more of a scorer. And no, I'm not saying Rush will be Reggie.

                        Reggie his rookie year shot 172 3s. Rush shot 209.
                        Reggie his second year shot 224 3s. Rush shot 302.

                        Now who's shots were more open? I wasn't able to watch, so I can't say for sure, but based off what I know of those two years in Pacers history, I'm going to say they were probably in pretty similar situations. Why? Because the Pacers of the late 80's weren't a whole lot different than the Pacers of today. They had this guy named Chuck Person who much like Danny Granger drew the focus of the defense. So I'm imagining Reggie got a lot of his looks in his first two years in a similar fashion to how Brandon did these past two.

                        They were wired differently though, and thus why Reggie became a great SCORER, while Brandon will probably only remain a great SHOOTER.

                        I would need someone who wasn't 1 year old then to confirm my thoughts for me, but I'm really doubting Reggie was the primary focus of the opposing defense his first two years.
                        it was also a completely different era in basketball as well at that time.. the 3 pt line was first adopted i believe about the same year REG entered the league.. so what may not seem like alot of 3's at the time by today's standards.. was actually more attempts than you would realize.

                        either way.. calling rush a great shooter at this point in his career is kinda hard to accept. he may eventually become a good shooter, but he has alot of work ahead if we wants to be mentioned in the same sentence as Reggie.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          1.) I've never said he's as a good a shooter as Reggie, as clutch a shooter as Reggie, or that he will ever be Reggie Miller. You brought up Reggie first when you said Reggie had never, in his entire career, airballed an open 3. Count already proved that wrong. All I said, was that Reggie and Rush joined the Pacers in comparable situations, but they are wired 100% differently.

                          2.) You claim to be such a basketball expert, yet you think the NBA 3 point line was introduced the same year Reggie entered the league? Um, no. The NBA adopted the 3 point line for the 1979-1980 season. So basically 8 years before Reggie ever stepped onto an NBA court.

                          Originally posted by PacersPride
                          so what may not seem like alot of 3's at the time by today's standards.. was actually more attempts than you would realize.
                          I'm not sure what this means...numbers are numbers. Unless NBA 3 point shooting suffered some sort of inflationary event, is a 3 pointer today worth more than a 3 pointer tomorrow. What's the exchange rate on an NBA 3 pointer when traded for a Euro League 3 pointer?


                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            1.) I've never said he's as a good a shooter as Reggie, as clutch a shooter as Reggie, or that he will ever be Reggie Miller. You brought up Reggie first when you said Reggie had never, in his entire career, airballed an open 3. Count already proved that wrong. All I said, was that Reggie and Rush joined the Pacers in comparable situations, but they are wired 100% differently.

                            2.) You claim to be such a basketball expert, yet you think the NBA 3 point line was introduced the same year Reggie entered the league? Um, no. The NBA adopted the 3 point line for the 1979-1980 season. So basically 8 years before Reggie ever stepped onto an NBA court.



                            I'm not sure what this means...numbers are numbers. Unless NBA 3 point shooting suffered some sort of inflationary event, is a 3 pointer today worth more than a 3 pointer tomorrow. What's the exchange rate on an NBA 3 pointer when traded for a Euro League 3 pointer?
                            your correct, i got Bird mixed up with Reggie. the 3 was introduced around when Bird came into the league.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I'm not sure what this means...numbers are numbers. Unless NBA 3 point shooting suffered some sort of inflationary event, is a 3 pointer today worth more than a 3 pointer tomorrow.
                              The Great MidRange Jumper Famine of 2004 saw a dearth of jumpers in front of the three point line. Due to this, three-pointers became a much more profitable commodity.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                Was Reggie a consistent 3 point threat? He matched Rush's percentage 5 times in his 18 season career and didn't match Rush's 3 PT made 7 times.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X